Let's not forget Argument by Selective Observation! The enumeration of favorable outcomes. The success get's the hoopla and the failures remain quiet.
On Aug 5, 10:01 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Once again, Deripsni, you are incorrect in your assertion. Before you go any > farther, please go back and read Molly's exact quote. > > 2009/8/4 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > In order for non medical healing to occur, you need to believe in it. > > Would you like to qualify this outrageous statement? > Ian > > Molly makes a statement of an idea. Not a recollection of personal > experience, but a statement of an idea. Ian responds by attacking the idea > in an entirely acceptable (although acerbic) way. > > You are now committing the logical fallacy of 'Appeal to Emotion' in her > defense, in stating "I'm sure she's not enjoying it.". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion > > Your argument type is no less valid than Ian's. Both are allowed, and I'm > sure that many would find your type as distasteful as you find his. * > Entiende?* > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:35 AM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No need to go on, although your examples have little to do with my > > point, or from my perspective, Molly's. We are talking about a belief > > in one's own ability to acheive something through the power of > > positive thinking. In Molly's case, this attitude or "belief" worked > > to gain the healthy "experience". > > > We are not discussing the belief in a cultist's dogma, or the > > propensity of pedeophiles to attack young children, or that you should > > not condemn the belief or hunger of vile people with personal agendas > > that fly in the face of decency. Even though you have not experienced > > them, you have knowledge of the devastating effects of these events, > > and can therefore condemn them until you are blue in the face with my > > blessing. > > > Such is not the case with Molly's assertion that a belief in something > > helped her to gain a positive result. You can say that her experience > > is quackery, or use any other adjective you like, but that does not > > impact her experience one way or the other. To refute someones > > personal experience simply because you have not experienced it, and to > > do so with the terms we are talking about, is something I do not think > > is right, and I am sure Molly is not enjoying it. > > > On Aug 5, 10:12 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This is a nice idea, Deripsni, and I can see that you mean it with the > > best > > > of intentions, but I'm afraid it's utterly fallacious. Allow me to > > > demonstrate. > > > > I could condemn the beliefs of the Jim Jones / Heaven's Gate (insert > > > suicidal death cult here) group as lunacy which led to their demise, but > > > I'll reserve judgement since I haven't experienced it. > > > > I could condemn the hunger of Pedophiliacs and Serial Killers as socially > > > destructive, but I'll reserve judgement since I haven't experienced it. > > > > I could condemn the dogma of The Lord's Army of Uganda / The Islamic > > Jihad / > > > The Shining Path / Aum Shinrikyo as religious madness which has directly > > led > > > to the deaths of millions, but I'll reserve judgement, since I haven't > > > experienced it. > > > > Need I go on? > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:49 AM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would dispute that it is only an "IDEA". It may seem this way to > > > > you, thus the "quackery" terminology. Homeopathy may be "utterly > > > > ludicrous" to some, while others love it, although I am not sure Molly > > > > was generally talking about homeopathy, although some of the methods > > > > she brought up may fall under that broad heading. > > > > > I would suggest that, in the case where something has not been > > > > experienced personally, that it should not be catagorized emphatically > > > > as bunk with less-than-rosey adjectives, but maybe one could state > > > > "This is not my experience" or even "Until this happens to me I won't > > > > believe it" etc. Lack of personal experience does not render anothers > > > > experience obsolete or irelevant. > > > > > On Aug 5, 8:20 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Calling an IDEA quackery is exactly in keeping with our debate > > format. > > > > Attack the idea, not the person. I find the idea of homeopathy to be > > utterly > > > > ludicrous. I would not, however, personally attack a member of this > > forum > > > > for espousing it. > > > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:deripsni <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > > Eye\"" > > > > <[email protected]>Date:Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:41:37 -0700 > > > > (PDT)Local:Wed, Aug 5 2009 6:41 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Non Medical > > > > Healing - The Non-Science of Life? > > > > > > Thanks for the welcome, although I'm not sure why someone who has > > been > > > > > posting 10 times a day for 2 months needs welcoming ;-] > > > > > > If you think calling somebody's words "outrageous, quackery and > > juju", > > > > > is classified as "reasonable debate", you are free to do so. Sounds a > > > > > tad more like outright dismissal with a topping of spite. Molly's > > > > > personal characteristics have nothing to do with my determinations > > > > > about the subject. I did not agree with her because I find her "an > > > > > intelligent, well rounded thinker" [ I don't even know what she looks > > > > > like ;-], but because I have been practicing what she is talking > > about > > > > > for decades. In my experience, positive thinking has affected my > > > > > physical health. > > > > > > To clarify what I meant when I said that I was "surprised at the > > > > > resistance"; I am not surprised that many do not accept her words, > > > > > doubters in this area are a dime a dozen. What did surprise me was > > the > > > > > harshness of language spoken by those who have admonished me for > > > > > pointed wording that I rarely use in my posts, although typically > > > > > directed at abusive types, and not someone reasonable like Molly. In > > > > > fact, Molly's responses to these personal attacks have been very > > > > > reserved as I am sure she would have loved to return the volley in > > > > > kind. > > > > > > Like I said, must be something to do with the moon ;-] > > > > > > On Aug 4, 11:39 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Welcome to the Minds Eye, Deripsni. ;) Rigorous debate, especially > > in > > > > areas > > > > > > of study which may be scientifically immature (as has been > > suggested by > > > > > > some), is the norm. What would be more surprising around here would > > be > > > > for a > > > > > > "New Age" type idea to sail by unchecked. I find Molly to be an > > > > intelligent > > > > > > and well rounded thinker, who is capable and articulate when > > > > verbalizing and > > > > > > defending her viewpoints, and I'm sure she's not surprised at the > > > > > > resistance. Rational thought is something we value here, so any > > idea > > > > which > > > > > > doesn't seem to sit right to any one of us according to our own > > > > rational > > > > > > understanding of the available data will be fully analyzed and > > chewed > > > > on. > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM, deripsni <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I support that analysis, and am a little surprised at the > > resistance. > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 6:09 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a link between neurochemistry and emotion, Chris, but > > the > > > > > > > > direction of cause is in dispute. Basically happy people have > > a > > > > > > > > balance in body chemistry that reflects that. Constantly angry > > > > people > > > > > > > > have a body chemistry that reflects that. Two different body > > > > > > > > chemistry balances in many ways. Are you saying that the > > chemistry > > > > > > > > drives the emotion? Because I think it is the other way > > around, > > > > and > > > > > > > > that we can learn to maintain emotional health just as we can > > learn > > > > to > > > > > > > > maintain physical health. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 5:38 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The reason I come back to injections, Molly, is because we > > know > > > > that > > > > > > > > > chemicals control moods, shape them. Seratonin, dopamine, > > > > oxytocin, > > > > > > > > > adrenaline...these are the building blocks of our emotions. > > Our > > > > moods > > > > > > > do not > > > > > > > > > create them...they would not exist without them. Outside > > stimulus > > > > will > > > > > > > cause > > > > > > > > > response, and with conscious effort, we can indeed learn to, > > in > > > > some > > > > > > > small > > > > > > > > > way, mitigate their production, but it is not circular to > > > > recognize the > > > > > > > > > causal nature of neurochemistry to mood. The injection > > experiment > > > > would > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > empirical proof of this; if your mood was capable of > > mitigating a > > > > > > > > > contradictory dosage of neurochemical cocktail, it would > > provide > > > > > > > scientific > > > > > > > > > evidence to support your statement. > > > > > > > > > > But then, according to your post, this isn't about scientific > > > > facts, > > > > > > > this is > > > > > > > > > about individual truths (read: faith). > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Molly Brogan < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Again, the which came first circular argument. I am not > > saying > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > neurochemistry does not exist, Chris, only that it is not > > the > > > > whole > > > > > > > > > > picture. And this is not the first time you have suggested > > > > that I > > > > > > > > > > inject something to prove your point (or Ian's). I guess > > you > > > > didn't > > > > > > > > > > understand my post above when I said that is up to YOU to > > prove > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > yourself, not me to prove to you. I have already proved it > > to > > > > myself. > > > > > > > > > > I have learned with much contemplation > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
